Tuesday, November 08, 2011

A Total Mess Calls for a Total Solution

Why is the left -- particularly leftist intellectuals -- so easily deceived? After all, Obama was their dream candidate. Before him, if the tenured had had their way, we would have had presidents McGovern, Dukakis, and Mondale, not to mention a second term for the despicable Jimmy Carter.

Likewise, intellectuals overwhelmingly supported FDR, and by and large continue to champion his nasty combination of hostility to business, high taxes, big government, heavy-handed social engineering, and income redistribution (even when a program ends up being an income transfer to the wealthy).

Now, believe it or not, I want to be as fair as possible to the left. I am not just trying to engage in polemics, or amuse my readers with the usual two-minutes hoot.

In fact, we can even leave other people out of it, since I can inquire of myself: why on earth did you, Bob, believe all that crap? I was once an intellectual, if by intellectual we mean a person who spends most of his time thinking about stupid ideas that sound good but don't work in practice, especially where human beings are concerned.

So, just how did I get involved in that racket, and how did I extricate myself? In one sense, it isn't difficult to explain. I spent most of my 20s immersed in the world of the tenured, pursuing my BA, MA, and Ph.D. licenses to steal.

But I was never a passive sort of person who was satisfied to simply take the knowledge I was given and use it to furnish my mind for the rest of my life. Rather, I really wanted to understand -- you know, the usual adolescent stuff such as why is the world so f-ing f-ed up, and who the f- can we blame?

Obviously the MSM couldn't be trusted. Back then I would have regarded them as just shallow bimbos as opposed to deceitful and agenda-driven bimbos, although I probably would have also agreed with the proposition that they are all large corporations who don't print or broadcast anything that clashes with their corporate interests (I remember reading Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent with hearty approval).

And conservatism was a priori out of the question. Not only had I had no exposure to conservative philosophy (certainly not in any coherent sense, just maliciously distorted or disunderstood fragments), but would have no sooner turned to it than I would have joined the Nazi Party of America.

Conservatism wasn't just intrinsically false, but plainly malevolent. To say nothing of uncool. Conveniently, I could maintain this fiction because I didn't know any conservatives. Or, if I did, I didn't know about it. Like any other sanctimonious liberal, I truly assumed that liberalism was just common sense and common decency.

Therefore, since I wanted to penetrate beneath the surface, I eventually turned to the usual leftist suspects such as Chomsky, Zinn, the Nation, and all the rest, assuming this was the way any rational and educated person should proceed. So I was among the "seduced" spoken of in The Great Lie, and no one is more seducible than the secular intellectual, for reasons we will get into, if not today, then as we proceed.

One question this collection grapples with is what exactly is totalitarianism? Is it even an "ism," or is it just a tactic? Is it actually a new phenomenon, or just a new name for tyranny? Is it something that human beings gravitate toward, or is it only imposed from the top-down and outside-in? How can two such vastly different cultures -- Russia and Germany -- end in this final common pathway of totalitarianism? And was it an inevitable result of the ideology, or did it have more to do with the men, e.g., Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, et al?

As alluded to in yesterday's post, we shouldn't think of liberal democracy and totalitarianism as opposites, but as situated along a continuum -- or perhaps even like the yin-yang symbol, so there is always a little grain of totalitarianism in the best democracy, and vice versa.

Here is how Vaclav Havel characterized it: "[I]n the end, is not the grayness and the emptiness of life in the post-totalitarian world [he was speaking of 1970s Czechoslovakia under the Soviet boot heel] only an inflated caricature of modern life in general? And do we not stand... as a kind of warning to the West, revealing its own latent tendencies?" After all, if human beings can immerse themselves in the Lie and "be alienated from themselves," it is "only because there is something in them to alienate."

Conversely, if -- as assumed by modern scientism and the philosophical left -- there is no essential self to be alienated, then what's the problem with a massive state engaging in social engineering in order to create its utopian version of a "better" human? Why not?

Furthermore, for the left in general and totalitarianism in particular, there is no intrinsic authority and no moral absolutes, because no God. There is no pre-political truth. As the left teaches us, "the personal is the political," so there is truly no escape from political -- or politicized -- thought and action.

What this ultimately implies is that there is really no individual (much less a free one), which, in a stroke, eliminates the first principle of our liberal Founders.

This would explain how and why self-styled "progressivism" always involves a regression to a pre-individual and collective state of being.

In this context, Taylor notes that communism, fascism, and National Socialism can all be thought of as "a rebellion against this separation, as a project to reintegrate people into a social whole where they find community, duty, and a higher purpose. To the extent that liberal democracy fails to provide these goods, the totalitarian temptation will not disappear."

Meaning that it can never disappear so long as human beings attempt to draw ultimate meaning from politics and/or economics. Nevertheless, this pseudo-religious quest is transparently what the OWSers are all about. The other day, Taranto linked to some representative examples, such as this florid bit of political schlock by a Max Berger:

"The rapid growth of the occupations, the broad public support for the movement, and the incredible amount of media attention it has garnered suggest that we as a people recognize the need to revolutionize our political system and our economy.

"The occupy movement is still in its infancy, but... it has already reawakened the radical imagination, especially for members of my generation by tapping into our surprisingly deep wells of sincerity and authenticity. The unbranded space of the occupation provides the canvas upon which we paint the outlines of our imagined future. In it, we are reminded us [sic] that we all depend upon each other for happiness and survival. In it, we are not consumers or clients; we are citizens in a consensual community that empowers each of us. In it, we are compelled to truly listen to each other..."

And buddy, you must have a heart of stone if that deep well of sincere authenticity doesn't make you laugh out loud.

46 Comments:

I read Chomsky out of high school. I didn't go to college, but did buy used college books from the used book stores for a bargain. I thought, at least I'm educating myself. I can't believe I wasted six dollars on that crap.

"In this context, Taylor notes that communism, fascism, and National Socialism can all be thought of as "a rebellion against this separation, as a project to reintegrate people into a social whole where they find community, duty, and a higher purpose. To the extent that liberal democracy fails to provide these goods, the totalitarian temptation will not disappear."

Meaning that it can never disappear so long as human beings attempt to draw ultimate meaning from politics and/or economics. Nevertheless, this pseudo-religious quest is transparently what the OWSers are all about. "

Yep. It seems as if all of the variants (commies, fascists, authoritarians, etc) are simply stylistic choices, powered by a rejection of property rights (the only way to fund the fiend), and which is made possible by ultimately rejecting either the existence of, or propriety of, the Individuals Volitional capacity, aka Free Will; their position on that determines who, or what, is responsible for the circumstances of the individual - the individual, or the collective.

And if the responsibility for the individual is not to be found in the individual, then neither is meaning to be found within them, but must come from the collective as well - and even the hint that it might come from within (and to the inwardly outwards), is a subversive threat which, on being identified, produces an ever escalating hostility from those who have become 'them'.

Ha - whereas my wv is "expriap". I'll leave that one to the menfolk to figure out...

As to how one gets to be a liberal in the first place, the mention of Dukakis reminds me of my formative years. I was an 8th grader in '88 and a senior in '92; both elections were of course talked about extensively in school, and yet oddly, I can barely remember much at all about the Republican. I do remember that our teachers were unabashed supporters of the Democrat in each election, and there was an expectation that the students would be as well. Because of course the Democrats were the good guys: they cared about the environment, they cared about school funding, they cared about welfare and healthcare. Democrats cared, we were told, but who knew what the Republicans cared about? Money, and rich people. or something. In truth, I don't think it came up very often.

"In this context, Taylor notes that communism, fascism, and National Socialism can all be thought of as 'a rebellion against this separation, as a project to reintegrate people into a social whole where they find community, duty, and a higher purpose. To the extent that liberal democracy fails to provide these goods, the totalitarian temptation will not disappear.'

Meaning that it can never disappear so long as human beings attempt to draw ultimate meaning from politics and/or economics."

This was a very insightful description of the Red poison in a nut shell, and an excellent description of the blind spots of sincere pinkos (yes, they still exist, but they're not much fun to talk to).

I really hope that shooting the political bull has not side tracked the main conversation from MotT. But I will respond to the Paul-baiters.

Murray Rothbard? While I'm sure Dr. Paul prefers AC to whatever you want to call the status quo, he is not in favor of eliminating the federal government completely, and so obviously does not subscribe to the "taxation is theft" idea. But given our incumbent system of government, I'd say a Paul presidency and a Rothbard presidency would be indistinguishable in terms of results. (Rothbard embraced birth as the line of demarcation after which a human receives all the rights he talks about, but as this issue has been effectively removed from politics I think the above stands.)

I have nothing but disdain for the GOP as such. There are plenty of smart, sincere people in it, but the nature of party politics ensures that any good will be diluted to impotence and bad will be amplified to prominence. I think the belief that the demise of the GOP would result in the end of conservatism betrays an amusing lack of imagination.

Worse than Obama? Jeez, please, show your work. Again, I asked that we focus on domestic policy (for the time being). Anti-semitic (a charge from a missing comment)? If this were not just slander, would it mean anything in terms of government action? 9-11 was blowback? If this were a fair assessment of his views (which it is not), since we don't have a time machine it's much less relevant than what he thinks should be done (which seems to be in the foreign policy domain). Isolationism? I hate when a word's connotation begins to dominate its actual definition. Though this is, again, foreign policy: isolationism is impossible in the modern world, and describe Dr. Paul as an isolationist is to descend into childish name calling. Say what you mean.

Julie,Unclenching is good advice, especially for me. I have a visceral (and thus often not very well reasoned) reaction to jargon, and it was deeply unfair of me to imply what I did (not to mention dumb, as I am free to stop reading whenever I choose). Sorry RG.

However, enlarging that comment to an aversion to symbols is a stretch.

"Yep. It seems as if all of the variants (commies, fascists, authoritarians, etc) are simply stylistic choices, powered by a rejection of property rights (the only way to fund the fiend), and which is made possible by ultimately rejecting either the existence of, or propriety of, the Individuals Volitional capacity, aka Free Will; their position on that determines who, or what, is responsible for the circumstances of the individual - the individual, or the collective."

Aye! And yet, hypeocritically, those on the left don't wanna share their own stuff (property).

And they want free speech except not for those who disagree with theirs.

That's the way of all totalitarian utropeian Occulices. Those who wield the power get theirs...no one else matters.

"..the absolute comes down to the state, which embodies the Spirit and Will of the People."

Maybe that would be an egregore? (I've been reading my MOTT.) Never thought that the spirit and will of the people could become a spiritual entity. New concept for me. Also, may be why it is so attractive to people because it is more than just a physical/political entity. There is a spiritual power working as well.

"Also, may be why it is so attractive to people because it is more than just a physical/political entity. There is a spiritual power working as well."

Well, with the USSR, there was basically your Stalin/Lenin Cult of Personality. It was probably more of a proto-eregore since it really didn't outlast 'em by that long and shows no sign of really returning.

If it was an eregore, I would think that it would be more enduring rather than a standard-issue four generation flash in the pan.

So this is kind of strange. In two days, two comments have disappeared; they were unrelated but could be connected by the fact that they were both demonstrations of... Godwin's Law! I'd bet on a Blogger hiccup, but it's amusing.

Joseph,You ever read Mencius Moldbug? I think he might clarify the nature of the modern USG for you a little. Read with salt shaker in hand, but quite entertaining.

"I probably would have also agreed with the proposition that they are all large corporations who don't print or broadcast anything that clashes with their corporate interests (I remember reading Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent with hearty approval).

And conservatism was a priori out of the question. Not only had I had no exposure to conservative philosophy (certainly not in any coherent sense, just maliciously distorted or disunderstood fragments), but would have no sooner turned to it than I would have joined the Nazi Party of America."

My leftist friends write these things on Facebook all the time, so you could just copy and paste it from there and save time typing if you would like. Those statements are virtually verbatim, chapter and verse...

Gabe said "I really hope that shooting the political bull has not side tracked the main conversation from MotT. But I will respond to the Paul-baiters."

I don't think sidetracking is a problem, but jumping threads is (this began on yesterday's)... replying to comments that don't exist in the thread being replied to... confusing. For those who are interested in following a thread, they can click the subscrbe checkbox, and continue on thread the next day, or year... best to stick with the one that brought ya.

"I have nothing but disdain for the GOP as such."

Best that I can say for them is that they usually make me less sick to my stomach than the other leading brand.

The topics you brought up about Paul aren't anything I mentioned, and you wanted to avoid foreign policy, so I'll mostly pass them by, except for,

'AC'? Anderson Cooper? Not sure what you mean by that. And yes, Rothbard wouldn't fit with Paul's Fed Govt, taxation, etc, it was a very sloppy (on my part) 'hmmm... wonder if...' thought that popped up into mind in regards to the whiff of the topic of int'l relations running through my mind before I clicked 'publish now', and that was his 'non-aggression as the basis for liberty', I didn't extend it beyond that. Obviously.

joseph said "Let's examine, say the Bush presidency. Was he a conservative?"

No.

"GB will sometimes criticize him, though during his reign never did."

I know that's false... depended upon the topic.

"Bush is a perfect example of a fascist ruler."

Silly and meaningless. Fascism is, in regards to policy, enabling govt to participate, and direct, private business. That is what regulatory law introduced to America, and it was done looong before Bush, and before Wilson as well. The one actual fascistic thing which Bush did actually do, and which I pointed out at the time, was enabling Paulson to force the banks to participate in TARP (right acronym? doesn't matter...). But fascism goes way beyond such simple policy matters, or even regulatory law, fascism is the instuting of hyper pragmatist philosophy as espoused by a Leader who is bound to nothing else but whichever position they feel "Can't wait!".

Bush lost too many Supreme Court issues to even approach the snicker test.

"There is no true free market. It is a myth, except in small scale scenarios."

Silly as well. Came damn near fruition, and for a brief shining moment, extended between America, Britain and most of Europe, in the mid 19th century, see Richard Cobden. The protection and defense of property rights require no limited area to be successfully maintained, nor does it need such an extensive support system as to make extending it world wide an issue.

"The Tea Party is all for less goverment, just don't touch those hallowed institutions like SS or Medicare or little carts for old fat people, etc."

Whlie the Tea Party has no fail safe protections to keep idiots from claiming us, such govt program people don't fare well in our region (St. Louis), that I can garauntee.

"And now, our debt, our overseas overreaching, and our loss of manufacturing to lands where people will work for less have led to our decline..."

Not to minimize the dire threat which our massive debt is, but regulations have far more to do with driving business from American shores than debt, or even taxes, and until the regulatory state is pared back, and eliminated, don't expect any other politician or legislative measure to make much of a difference.

Anna said "I have recently read that totalitarianism is just barbarism. Maybe it is barbarism plus technology."

I wouldn't dismiss that by any means. Barbarism is failing to hold Reason, and so Principled behavior, above the urges of muscle, blood and passion; the less Reason is methodically practiced, the closer to barbarism the people slide.

(Note: Reason as properly, classically, understood, not in the sense of that modernist exercise in logic chopping which runs about under its name today.)

It made a lot of sense to me. It kind of relieved the "mystery" of 20th century totalitarianism, as a reversion, nothing new. Totalitarianism, though, seems to be a technologically-influenced version, it seems to me, but that could be wrong.

Anna said "Totalitarianism, though, seems to be a technologically-influenced version, it seems to me, but that could be wrong."

Yeah... but technology really only affects the extent to which that barbaric control can be extended, in much the same way as a system of roads helped extend the Persian empire, modern technology enables a state to extend its reach from public squares and doorsteps to associations and conversations, but I think the principle remains the same - the imposition of force and desire over reason and principle.

Anna said "If humans without reason are like closed-system animals, then the closed-system of totalitarianism resembles that kind of a state (no pun intended)."

Yep. From Federalist #51:"It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

I don't think it is the result of technology, but that it can use technology. So I guess that is what you were saying!

Another element might be similar to how Bob has pointed out that in the Middle East, culture didn't develop along with technology but uses it. When people come upon ready-made sophisticated tools and conveniences, it might encourage a lack of reason due to a lack of sweat and development. The aforementioned text I came across pointed out that technology is a fruit of civilization but that it eventually risks contributing to a false sense of comfort due to it seeming automatic. So it isn't technology's fault, but it could encourage flab of the mind. Only an idea. I need to get coffee I meant to get an hour ago. This is a little sketched not drawn... sorry!

It is interesting to read that. I was a fifth grader in '88, and in my circles and even pericircles, the name Dukakis was equivalent to something like an antichrist. I remember looking at the TV in the family room and feeling horror at the thought of Bush losing. For me, it was all very traumatic and strange because Reagan WAS the President. He had been the President since I was three.

I had no idea then that there were groups (in the sense of real people) with the opposite view - supporters of Dukakis. It was all very abstract. I am just noticing the separation of parties.

Of course, LATER, in college, the onslaught was almost complete. The norm was the opposite. (It had a lot to do with my choice of colleges.)

I was in public school, in a suburb of Seattle. I distinctly remember going with my mom to try and get into a Dukakis event (possibly something having to do with education, and extra credit), but it was so crowded there was no chance of even finding a parking space, let alone getting in the door. My dad may have been a Bush supporter, but if so he was quiet and vague about it. We were a Boeing family in a blue area of a blue state. The fact that enough people across the country supported Bush for him to win the election was simply astounding.

While calling Bush a fascist is childish, he continued moving the USG along the totalitarian spectrum at more or less the same pace as any donkey. And while since Wilson is too sweeping a condemnation, it also starts too late.

I was in Portland, Oregon, but Portland was not as... Portland back then. [Incidentally, I am from Seattle, and all my extended family is there. My grandpa - Papa Jack - an Irish Catholic man, on my dad's side worked for Boeing. (We didn't talk about politics with them. Protestantism was the big issue.)]

I'm fascinated by the separation of voting blocks. I mean, really, it sounds like neither of us could fathom the existence of the opposite party. This is also pre-fall of the Berlin wall (just mentioning for context), and PC's were pretty new. Now you can watch elections and their lead up in real-time on the internet. It was more of a wall of unknown then, I think, unless you were doing (in the business of) the polls or something. But I was eleven in Nov. '88. ...I guess that was sixth grade. Maybe the adults were more aware of actual Democrats. I'm not so sure, though.

If you heard of any Democrats around, like a neighbor or coworker, they were seen as either having a moral gap (do what you want without consequences) or as mistaken, naive materialists (the world is what you see).

He loses me towards the end. I wonder if he's not missing a more general point to some extent: that even consequentialism, eventually, will point to truth and lead to good and right conduct, if experience is considered properly. Thoughts?

Oh, duh, sorry, abbreviations out of the blue often stump me. Wasn't Rothbard's bit anarcho-syndicalism though? or maybe that was one he was opposing... been awhile since I read his tomes.

I've been mostly pleased that attention has been drawn to Wilson lately, and the truly disastrous things he helped bring about, but people are too quick to forget, or never bother to learn, that nearly everything he did, was first floated or attempted by Teddy Roosevelt, and even that's too late in the game. The first regulatory body was the Interstate Commerce Act from back in 1887 under Cleveland, and that's still a bit late.

There was much in the air for quite awhile, but nothing ever came together from the Fed govt, down into the states, until the Morrill Act for Land Grant colleges, which kicked off federal involvement in education, brought about the first federal mandates requiring action from the states in order to receive federal goodies, and also kicked off the beginnings of a federal agricultural agency.

That was the first evil seed that found fertile ground, and fittingly came during the Civil War (which is tempting to say that the South won (legally and educationally speaking)... but that's just a little too cutsey).

But of course that came out of changing views of what education was, which came out of philosophy, and takes us back to Hegel, Kant, Godwin, Hume, Rousseau, Descartes... and luckily for all it's too late for a full blown rant, so end it does there.

We need only so much ego as for the maintenance of the body we reside in. No more, no less.

Communism, Fascism, Collectivism, National Socialism ... etc.. are all fashion statements of the latest emperor's clothes that s(he) wears and snake oil for the masses so that they are happy while being humped by those of higher station.

The social sciences are really in their infancy with only a Republic being a government that is truly inspired. here is a nice video I saw several years ago that cleared things up for me in very stark black and white terms:

Van, William. Regarding VA, WOOT! That was the senate district just north of ours where we squeaked by with a victory. The Democrats drew the senate districts very much in their favor, and despite that, we are now tied in the senate with a conservative Lt. Gov to break the ties. The house Republicans pummeled the Democrats because we got to draw the redistricting lines. The night started off depressing because we thought the Dems still has the senate but then the final results came in and...YEA!

Links to this post:

About Me

Location: Floating in His Cloud-Hidden Bobservatory, Inside the Centers for Spiritual Disease Control and Pretension, Tonga

Who spirals down the celestial firepole on wings of slack, seizes the wheel of the cosmic bus, and embarks upin a bewilderness adventure of higher nondoodling? Who, haloed be his gnome, loiters on the threshold of the transdimensional doorway, looking for handouts from Petey? Who, with his doppelgägster and testy snideprick, Cousin Dupree, wields the pliers and blowtorch of fine insultainment for the ridicure of assouls? Who is the gentleman loaffeur who yoinks the sword from the stoned philosopher and shoves it in the breadbasket of metaphysical ignorance and tenure? Whose New Testavus for the Restavus blows the locked doors of the empyrean off their rusty old hinges and sheds a beam of intense darkness on the world enigma? Who is the Biggest Fakir of the Vertical Church of God Knows What, channeling the roaring torrent of 〇 into the feeble stream of cyberspace? Who is the masked pandit who lobs the first water balloon out the motel window at the annual Raccoon convention? Who is your nonlocal partner in disorganized crimethink? Shut your mouth! But I'm talkin' about bʘb! Then we can dig it!